The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 07-06-2005, 06:31 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by grecka
The idea of monarchy in America, in my opinion is absolutely frightening. I mean, they're alright for a novelty and everything, but I believe that monarchy breeds elitism and arrogance and too much centralized power, which, in turn, leads to abuse of power. That's why I'm so proud to be an American, and that's why, every time some one on this forum suggests we have a king or monarch, I gag.
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-06-2005, 06:46 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.
I agree. :) And they are also a simbol of unity and continuity.
__________________

__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:18 AM
Mascha's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: --, Netherlands
Posts: 398
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.
I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:35 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Thank you for your answers, great variety of ideas!

Toledo, I think you misinterpereted my thread. As you can see from the answers posted and from various practical examples, there are several way of beeing a monarch (Monaco's ruler has a completely different role than Spain's monarch for example). This thread is about how a monarchy should be ruled, and what monarch is the closest to a perfect ruler.
Of course, I opened the way to some discussions about the principle of monarchy itself as I thought it would enrich the conversation. I think I was right (see post #9).
If we are all adults, there is no reason for a war to begin :) .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toledo
What's the point of this post?!?! I read the news shown in chats around, similar to the Royal Forums, and if I recall recently this question, but phrased in a different way, caused quite a stir in another Forum to a point the Adms, Netty and Toni, had enough with the personal attacks, mainly from pro-republicans, and ended closing the thread.

So, are you bringing that war zone over here, to the quite waters of Les Tribunes Royales/Royal Forums?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:45 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mascha
I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?
Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. :)) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:49 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piewi
I´m against monachy, so for me they aren´t relevant, i mean they don´t lead their countries or have a politicy just are famous or made their country famous (as Monaco).
That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-06-2005, 07:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
Monarchy doesn't breed elitism or arrogance. The most egalitarian societies in the world are monarchies, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. and if the monarchy is constitutional then there is no centralised power. Having a monarch means that you have a head of state who is above politics and who can unite a nation in a way that a president can't. As for arrogance, well you need look no further than the present occupant of the oval office to see that in action.
I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.

Finally, the current occupant of the oval office is only one example. One can not judge all presidents of all countries by his record. There have been, and continue to be, numerous presidents and prime ministers who have united their countries, just as there have been (and continue to be) monarchs who bring havoc to their countries.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-06-2005, 08:06 AM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
I think it is also fair to recognize that some of the least egalitarian places in the world are also monarchies, and monarchs are not always above politics,even in
Europe. Besides, a monarchy is a part of a country's governance structure, and thus arguably inherantly political. That the Western European countries you list are some of the most egalitarian in the world have less to do with the fact that they are monarchies today and more to do with their historical and cultural specifitities, as well as social structures. Would these structures disintigrate if the said monarchies were abolished? I don't think so.
Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-06-2005, 08:20 AM
Australian's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mascha
I absolutely agree with you..:)
The people who say they are against a monarchy are interested enough to come to this forum to discuss them....
I wonder why?
I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-06-2005, 09:43 AM
ElisaR's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ., Italy
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
That's interesting what you are saying because in Sweden, for example, parliament and politicians are constantly trying to axe the monarchy. It's not because they do a bad job (they're very hardworking) or not loved (Victoria is hugely popular). Just because they think monarchy is irrelevant to a modern country.
I wonder why the values carried by monarchies are often considered to be "old". As other posters said, they represent some very modern values IMO. For example, apart from Norway, Belgium and Spain, all crow princes and Kings are married to someone from a foreign country who managed to be totally accepted by their subjects or future subjects. That a very positive and modern example of integration I think.
And they also marry commoners. :)
__________________
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
HRH Princess Elizabeth, Cape Town, 21st April 1947
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-06-2005, 01:22 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
Question: do you think the inequalities would disappear with the monarchies in those places you mentioned (in bold)?
Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-06-2005, 01:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian
I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.
My point exactly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-06-2005, 01:34 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
Completely? No -- at least not at first, however, they will be mitigated (providing that the monarchies in question are replaced by a democratic system). And, for the record, I'm not just referring financially equality, but things like nepotism, class inequality, inequality based on ethnicity,gender inequality, etc.
But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-06-2005, 03:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 3,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueline28
Exactly I agree with you.This is such a useless post.It is so tired and old.Republicans like republics.And Monarchists like Monarchies PERIOD Let's just leave it to that.This kind of post has caused alot of ruckus in other boards it was shocking.Please give it a rest.
As expressed very well by my fellow TRF Team Member Lena in post #8, I think that this is an interesting discussion, and so long as members can behave civily and respectfully (which has been the case so far), then it should continue to exist as a thread here.

While it seems that others have followed a similar line of discussion at another royal discussion forum, please note that not all of us are members of this other forum, or have the time to read forums other than this one (as I do not). So for me, all this is a new and interesting discussion.

If you participated or were witness to the same discussion at another forum, and do not care for a re-hashing of the same discussion here, then please just disregard this thread but please don't tell others that it's a waste of time. For someone like me for whom it is all a fresh question, it is not a waste of my time.

Also, while members of this forum are likely members of other forums, too, as all the royal discussion forums are run differently with different rules and expectations, there is no reason to think that the same (apparent) nasty end of a similar discussion at the other forum will take place here.

Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-06-2005, 04:30 PM
Mascha's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: --, Netherlands
Posts: 398
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
Because different perspectives are what make life interesting...hehehehe. :)) Besides, one can have an interest in a particular area (in this case different forms of governance), but one does not have to be a proponent of every model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian
I am opposed to a monarchy system but that doesnt mean i am not interested in royalty, its the history and the descendants of royalty that i am interested in.

I am opposed to murderers for example (morbid, i know:() but that doesnt mean im not interested in the mind of murderers and why they do what they do. Just using an example is all.
You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!:o :o :o
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-06-2005, 04:48 PM
Humera's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Month Representative - Brunei, Malaysia & Dubai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Canada
Posts: 6,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.
Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idriel
But I don't understand why when a nation is democratic and egalitarian, that's independent from the regime but when it's a non democratic regime, monarchy has something to do with it.
Two examples: Juan Carlos of Spain and Shah Reza(??) Pahlavi.
When Juan Carlos arrived at power, Spain became a democratic nation.
When the Shah was forced to exile, Iran became a tyranny.
I think you are misunderstanding my post (s). Democracy and tyrnany both have to do with strucures of governance and regimes (the extent may vary). My point was that, although *some* countries with monarchies are egalitarian democracies, not all are -- particularly where the monarchy/monarch is vested with a lot of power (this is true for other kinds of authoritarian regimes as well, of course). Thus we should be cognizant of that instead of portraying all monarchies as beacons of egalitarianism.

Moreover, many of the countries that were previouly cited as egalitarian, democratic monarchies would remain egalitarian and democratic even if the monarchies in those countries were abolished because of the social ethos and dominant political cultures of those countries -- both of which have been developed over a long period of time. For instance, it has hard to see Sweden (where the monarch has little political power to begin with) becoming a tyranny if the monarchy were abolished. These countries are egalitarian democracies because that's what the people want.

Spain did become a democracy after the demise of the Franco regime, yes. That democracy has only recently been consolidated. But democracy isn't solely attributable to Juan Carlos. There had to be want and will from the populace as well to sustain the changes. Moreover, there were many abuses under the monarchy prior to Franco. One must be cognizant of that as well.

With respect to the Shah, well, as far as history is concerned, he was a tyrant. If you are familiar with Iranian/Middle Eastern history, you will know that Iran was a fledgling democracy under Mossadq in the 1950s before the autocratic regime of the Shah was installed by the West. Thus a fledgling, grass roots democracy was replaced with an autocracy, which in turn was replaced by a theocracy because of the abuses of the former.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mascha
You're both right, I didn't look at it that way SORRY!!:o :o :o

No reason to be sorry! We're all here to share our views & discuss. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:25 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~Humera~*~
Iran did not become a tyranny because the Shah left. The revolution itself had a lot to do with how much of a tyrant the Shah was himself. And because he was installed by the US, not chosen by his people.
Does this forum has a tread on the Shah of Iran? I only read the point of view of the Shah late daughter so far and she always has been very defensive (and very persuading) about her father memory. But I would be very interested in reading another perspective...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-06-2005, 05:26 PM
Idriel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: around, France
Posts: 1,130
thankx for answers Sean
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royal Yachts hrhcp Royal Life and Lifestyle 22 08-01-2007 07:42 AM
What Is The Point Of The Gr Family? sky The Royal Family of Greece 82 10-21-2004 01:26 PM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]